They are actually more doublets than cognates in that they share similar etymology, but they are not necessarily translations of each other, loaning back and forth between Hebrew and Aramaic.

Remember, it was Hebrew that initially adopted the Aramaic form after the Exile to Babylon (where Aramaic was adopted as the lingua franca as a matter of survival), and even in Jesus' day, most people went by either one or the other, but not both (they were, for the most part, treated as two separate names).

Another good example is the Aramaic name Zebedee /zbdy/ ("my gift"; or an even older form, Zebidu /zbydw/ which is more Akkadian), whose Hebrew doublet was Zebidiah /zbdyh/ ("Gift of YHWH"). They share similar etymology (i.e. a gift or endowment), and are often conflated, but have two different origins (one very much pagan, one Hebrew).

The Texas RAT wrote:Actually the Name of The Anointed One not only is the same as Yehoshua son of Nun as prophesied in ZekharYahu [Zechariah] 6:9-13, as all scholars worth there degree will readily admit that "The Branch" is a prophetic reference to the coming Anointed One Who would be our Eternal Priest and King. See: YeshaYahu [Isaiah] 11:1-7, YirmeeYahu [Jeremiah] 23:5 and 33:15-16. And they will also just as readily admit that it was derived from the name Hoshayah [Hosea] by simply adding a lone yohd unto the front of it.

Is this above not an assumption. What logic prevents his name from being simply "yeshua" the word for "salvation/deliverance" throughout the OT, rather than derived from another related name?

Anyway, yeshuah is from the same root of yasha as Hoshayah and Yehoshuah are, yet they each have different inflections thereof.

During the second Temple period (538 B.C - 70 A.D.), Yeshua/Jeshua first became a known form of the name Jehoshua. All of the Yeshua/Jeshua occurrences in the Scriptures are written in Aramaic form (I Chronicles 24:11, II Chronicles 31:15, Ezrah and NechemYah) where it is transliterated into English as Jeshua in many versions. "Yeshua/Jeshua" is found in the Scriptures where it lists the names of those who returned from the Babylonian exile. Two of these men are mentioned in other books of the Bible written in the Hebrew language, where they are called Jehoshua (mis-transliterated by many into English as Joshua).

"Jeshua the Son of Jotsadaq" in Ezrah 3:2 is the same High Priest mentioned in ZecharYahu 6:11, reflecting two different languages of the same name.

In ZecharYahu, he is called Jehoshua and in Ezrah he is called Jeshua.

{Ezrah 3:2} Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jotsadaq, ...

{ZecharYahu 6:11} Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Jehoshua the son of Jotsadaq, the high priest; ...

Also in NechemYah the name of "Jehoshua the son of Nun" changes to "Jeshua the son of Nun": {NechemYahu 8:17} And all the Called-Out Ones of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of YisraAyl done so.

This spelling change (from “Yod Heh Waw Shin Waw Ayin” to “Yod Shin Waw Ayin” is due to the Aramaic influence during the exile. For confirmation, check the Strong's Lexicon:

H3442 Yeshua yah-shoo'-ahFor H3091; he will save; Jeshua, the name of two Israelites, also of a place in Palestine: - Jeshua.

Notice that #3442 and #3443 are the same exact word with the same spelling (vowel points and all), but this lexicon lists them separately. Why is this? Well, if you looked up "Jeshua" in the Lexicon, you will notice that it lists "Jeshua" in Ezrah 3:2 as coming from #3442 and the (same guy) "Jeshua" in Ezrah 5:2 coming from #3443. The reason for the two different Strong's word numbers is Ezrah 5:2 is a part of the book of Ezrah which was written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8 through 6:18; 7:12-26). This is why #3443 mentions "Jeshua" as coming from "Chaldean". Therefore, Jeshua is actually the Aramaic rendering of Jehoshua(Strong's #H3091). And Jeshua as an Aramaic transliteration carries the original Hebrew meaning of “He Will Save”.

Chaldean also Chaldaean or Chaldeeadjective Of or relating to Chaldea or its people, language, or culture.noun 1. A member of an ancient Semitic people who ruled in Babylonia.2. See Aramaic.Aramaicnouna Northwest Semitic language that was the lingua franca throughout the Near East from c. 300 to c. 650: The Aramaic langue began to influence the Hebrew Langue during the Babylonian Exile.

"Jeshua" is therefore the Aramaic form[transliteration] of the Hebrew name "Jehoshua"(Strong's #H3091).

Yet, some claim that Jeshua is a pure Hebrew word and not the Aramaic form of "Jehoshua" at all, but that it is a Hebrew word meaning "Salvation". The problem with that is the Hebrew word for "Salvation" is not Jeshua but y’shuah! Again, take a look in the above lexicon at the differences between 3442/3443 and 3444: 3442 and 3443 use the silent (but anciently guttural) "Ayin" letter to end the word, but #3444 ends in the letter "Heh". While vowel letter under both words indicate they have a similar sounding ending, the different spelling indicates they are two different words.

There are different vowel pointing under the first letter - Yod [remember Hebrew and Aramaic reads from right to left]. 3442/3443 (JESHUA) has 2 horizontal dots underneath the first letter like this ( .. ). These two horizontal dots represent the Hebrew Vowel point "Tsere" (pronounced Tsey-rey) which produces the "eh" sound as in the English word "Hey". But 3444 has two vertical dots underneath the first letter like this ( : ). These two vertical dots represent the Hebrew vowel point "Sheva" which is a very short "e", somewhat like our "E" sound in the word "Average". [Check the first page of your Strong's Hebrew Lexicon for verification of this.]

Incidentally, the Sheva( : ) vowel point used by the Masorete scribes in yeshuah is why you will sometimes see it written as y'shuah. The purpose of the ( ' ) is to indicate the presence of the sheva vowel point in Hebrew. But as you can see Jeshua does not contain that vowel point at all. "Jeshua" uses the "Tsere" vowel point (i.e.- .. ) which produces an "eh" sound. Wherefore Jeshua and yeshuah are pronounced differently. The Lexicon indicates this as it gives the pronunciation of Jeshua as 'yay-shoo-ah, but yeshuah as 'yesh-oo-aw.

So the Aramaic name "Jeshua" and the Hebrew word "y'shuah" are not the same. "Jeshua" is the Aramaic form[transliteration] of thew Hebrew name "Jehoshua" and "y'shuah" is the Hebrew word for "salvation". Therefore, in spite of what some may say, there is no evidence to suggest that "Jeshua" means "salvation" in Hebrew. Again, "Jeshua" is not actually an authentic Hebrew word.

And any argument that Yeshua is not an Aramaic name because it has not etymology in the Aramaic, and therefore has to be a Hebrew name, is the same as saying that the Greek transliteration is not Greek, or even the English transliteration of Jesus is not an English form of the name and therefore must be Hebrew because Hebrew has the only origin for this name. Well yes only Hebrew has this name in it's etymology because it is the language in which this name originated in, and all the rest of these languages only transliterated it.

All the evidence indicates that "Jeshua" isn't from Hebrew, but is an Aramaic form/transliteration of the Hebrew name "Jehoshua". Being the Heavenly Father's prophesied His Son's Name to be a Hebrew Name, one should not expect to see His Son's Name coming from another language, whether Aramaic/Greek/Latin or English. And since none of these languages have, in the past, transliterated the Hebrew Name of The Anointed One right thus far, why not just correct It now? [ By the way, once more - nobody throughout history has ever been called y’shuah/yeshuah. Never!!!]

In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Yehudish [Jewish] texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, the N. T. Name of The Anointed One is the standard Greek form used to transliterate the O. T. Hebrew names Jehoshua plus Hoshea where it refers to Jehoshua the son of Nun (Deut. 32:44), and the Aramaic name Jeshua which refers to both Jehoshua son of Nun and Jehoshua son of Jehozadek.

So just how are we to know which one is the correct form of The Anointed One’s Name.

Since we should seek to walk in the truth, we should want to proclaim His Name as YHWH gave It. YHWH is the One Who Named His Son and we simply have no business changing It. It’s all these changes that has brought about the confusion in the first place. It can be complicated to sort through it all, but truth seeking is an honorable thing that is pleasing unto YHWH's eye. Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings to search out a matter.

And YHWH, in His infinite wisdom, prophesied what His Son's Name would be, among many other Prophecies, to help us recognize The Anointed One upon His arrival [KEY POINT].

Of course, if we are somehow unable to pronounce The Anointed One's Name, certainly YHWH is able to show mercy. But if we are able to, what reason do we have to continue in error? It would be far better to cleave to YHWH's declaration rather than continue in the mistakes of men, as human error is never superior to YHWH’s Truth!

In the book of ZecharYahu [6:9-13], YHWH states:And the word of YHWH came unto me, saying, Take of them of the captivity, even of Chelday, of TobiYahu, and of JedaYah, which are come from Babel, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of JoshiYahu the son of ZephanYahu; Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of JEHOSHUA the son ofYehozadek, the high priest; And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaks YHWHof Hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of YHWH: Even he shall build the temple ofYHWH; and he shall bear the Splendor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Most every scholar will be the first to tell you that "The Branch" is a prophetic reference to the coming Anointed One who would be our Eternal Priest and King.

{YeshahYahu 11:1-7} And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Yesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of YHWH shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of YHWH: and He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears: But with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

{YirmeeYahu 23:5} Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will raise unto Dahweed a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

{YirmeeYahu 33:15-16} In those days, and at that time, will I cause The Branch of righteousness to grow up unto Dahweed; and He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Yehudah be saved, and Yerushalayim shall dwell safely: and this wherewith she shall be called,YHWH our righteousness.

ZecharYahu was instructed to take a crown and place it on the head of Yehoshua the son of Yehozadek. When placing the crown on the head of Yehoshua the High Priest, ZecharYahu was told to proclaim: "Behold the man whose NAME is The BRANCH". Thus, this High Priest [Jehoshua] had the same Name as the coming Anointed One Who would reign as a Priest on His throne. Here YHWH revealed what His Son’s Name would be, so why not call Him by this Name? We see the examples of the apostles who were proclaiming His Name, baptizing in His Name, healing in His Name, and being persecuted for His Name sake unto death, we should be willing to do the same.

Interestingly, there is evidence that although the Name of The Anointed One was written in Greek, It would have actually been pronounced by all the Greek converts the same way a Hebrew speaking person would have pronounce it.

Around 178 AD, a pagan named Celsus engaged in written debates with the Believers of The Anointed One. In one of the written debates, Celsus wrote: "They assume that by pronouncing the Name of their Teacher they are armored against the powers of the earth and air. And they are quite insistent on the efficacy of the Name as a means of protection: pronounce It improperly, they say, and it is ineffective. Greek and Latin will not do; it must be said in a barbarian tongue to work." Celsus on the True Doctrine, A Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffman (page118)

Notice that Celsus was quoting the Called-Out-Ones as saying that the Name of their Teacher must not be spoken "improperly" and that It must not be spoken in a "Greek" way or "Latin" way, but in a "Barbarian tongue" for It to be effective.

This is evidence that, even though The Anointed One’s Name was written in Greek, some 150 years after The Anointed One’s Resurrection, The Anointed One’s Name was still being pronounced in the Hebrew tongue by all of the Converts (Yehudim/Hebrews and Goyim/Gentiles alike).

And again, in the New Testament,!!Scripture Identifies Yehoshua as The Anointed One!!

Shaul did every thing in his power to oppose The Anointed One’s Name [as SOME still do], But then he repented revealing fully The Anointed One’s True Name.

{Acts 26:14-15} “I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,[not Greek nor not even Aramaic] Shaul, Shaul, why persecute thou Me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.And I said, Who art thou, Adon?And He said,“I amYehoshuawhom thou persecute.”

Yehoshua is undoubtedly the Hebrew form of This Name. So Among all the various forms of this name "Yehoshua" is the correct form for an English Transliteration as attested to by Yehoshua Himself and as Foretold by YHWH His Father within the Scripture.

Though some might (still) say other forms are good enough. Why continue in error?

Verily, verily, I say to you, Rejoice not in FALSEHOODs, yet rejoice in all Truth.

According to the Words [shown here in velvet] of both YHWH and The Anointed One Himself (within Scripture), there is only one Name we should call The Anointed One by. One prophecied in the Hebrew tongue, while the other reiterated the Name in the Hebrew tongue: Therefore Yehoshua is The Anointed One’s True Hebrew Name!!!

And It is written with a very important meaning:!He Will Save!

The Book of Numbers (chapter 13 verse 16) attest to the fact that Moshay changed Hoshayah's name to Yehoshuah, and therefore the name Hoshayah [he saved] is the beginning of the etymology of the name Yehoshuah [he will save] (from the root yasha). Yehoshuah was then in latter years (D)evolved into many various forms unto many different languages, yet this does not mean that we can not make an effort to return to the pure language of this name as many willingly agree we should do for the Divine Name of our Elohim. Elohim named His Son and we should respect Him by calling His Son by the Name He gave unto Him, and not by any of the (d)evolved states that marginally literate commoners twisted it into throughout history.

If He is no respector of persons, can we say that He is a respector of languages? Does it bother Him, if we say His name in Aramaic, Latin, or English...or Chinese...if so, does He then demand that we ONLY use the Hebrew form? And if so...why? Is the Hebrew language more holy and carry more weight with Him?

Thirdwoe wrote:If He is no respecter of persons, can we say that He is a respecter of languages?

Why certainly not, yet no matter what languages one uses the name will sound exactly the same anyway, being transliterations are for the express written purpose of reproducing the exact same sounds as in the original language. After all it is not proper to translate much less hack one's name, at will, unto pieces.

Thirdwoe wrote:Does it bother Him, if we say His name in Aramaic, Latin, or English...or Chinese...if so, does He then demand that we ONLY use the Hebrew form? And if so...why?

Of course it does not bother Him if we speak one language or the other if we are respectfully of Him and His Son. And any one knows that it is not respectful of one if we hack their names all to pieces. Besides as I said before and I will repeat it again, no matter what language one speaks - names will/should always sound the same no matter what. The only reason that names have so-called evolved is due to say Moshay adding a Yohd (which is the 3rd person masculine prefix of the Imperfect tense, not short for "Yah") to Hoshayah's name making it to be Yehoshua (he will save instead of he saved). And the reason names devolve is due to marginally literate people mispronouncing the scholars transliteration. Anywho, Yehoshua/Jehoshua is a proper English transliteration of the original Hebrew name, so if one uses Yehoshua then they are using English of an original Hebrew name not that of the original Hebrew due to the letters are not Hebrew. I would spell the name in different languages but I can not get this forum to use anything other than English letters. But what ever language one properly transliterates this name into they would then be speaking this name in that language, all the while it will still sound the same. What I am trying to say is that Joshua and Jesus come no where near a proper transliteration and therefore it is disrespectful for people that have been told the truth in the matter to continue using such pour transliterations, much less continue to mispronounce them. It is well known that Jesus was to be pronounced as yay-SOOS not JEE-zuhs. Yet as shown even yay-SOOS falls far short of a proper transliteration of this (original) Hebrew name. Again only a transliteration that mimics the original sound of the name in it original language is proper. This name was first created within the Hebrew language so it must be pronounced in the same manner no matter what language one transliterates it into in order to have done so respectfully of the namer or namee.

Thirdwoe wrote:Is the Hebrew language more holy and carry more weight with Him?

This is a mute question as it only matters what language the original name was created so as to be able to properly transliterate the name into what ever language one might choose to speak it in. How hard can it be to understand that this name was originally a Hebrew Name and therefore, in order to be respectful of the namer and namee, no matter what language one would properly transliterate it into will still sound exactly the same as the name as it is in the Hebrew language. If YHWH named his Son JEE-zuhs in the in Chinese language then I would say that one would need to transliterate that sound into Hebrew if an when they are going to speak Hebrew. All this said Hebrew was the language that YHWH named His Son in and the exact same sound is to be transliterated into what ever language one should speak this name in -period. Plus the original definition also carries across languages as well. Thereby still retaining the definition of "he will save", nothing more nor nothing less.

I am pretty sure that if I started hacking up people's names the same way as The Anointed One's name has been done through the years people would get all up in a dander and I would most likely be banned from here if I did not take heed and start to treat peoples names with utmost respect. Why should anyone think YHWH would feel any differently about people hacking up His and His Son's Names purposely. Yes He holds them that have knowledge far more accountable than those of whom are illiterate. And I would have to say that anyone that has read this thread through, and does the math honestly, can no longer qualify as illiterate much less marginally literate when it comes to this name.

But for the slower people, like that of myself, reading this I will drum/drill it in/home one more time, names no matter what language one PROPERLY transliterates them into will always sound exactly like the original name in the language of its origin. And YHWH (in ZecharYahu [6:9-13]) named His Son within the Hebrew language and then Yehoshua confirmed it in Acts 26:14-15. And we as people either respect YHWH's choose or not. Therein lies the HEART of the matter, to what will we heed, YHWH's proclamation or some poor transliteration(s) wrought by men.

One good example of what I am saying is the phrase HalleluYah. This phrase is world renowned and pronounced exactly the same no matter what language one speaks. Yet it is a Hebrew phrase. Yes when people speak English and say HalleluYah they have pronounced this phrase properly as it is in the Hebrew language yet they are still speaking English. Other people around the world say this phrase in other languages yet it still sounds just like it does in the original language of its origin (i.e. - Hebrew). HalleluYah means "praise ye Yah". We know that The Short form of The Divine Name of Elohim is Yah, not Dah, Pah or Laypew. Anyone that can grasp this has no excuse left as far as The Anointed One's Name goes other than perhaps double checking to be sure what I have presented is truly there in the Scriptures and is the proper transliteration of the original name foretold by YHWH Himself.

So now can I get a HalleluYah?

Awmayn[Strong's #H543].

May,YHWH bless thee and keep thee;YHWH cause His face to shine on thee, and be gracious to thee;YHWH lift up His face to thee, and give thee shalom.

And any one knows that it is not respectful of one if we hack their names all to pieces. Besides as I said before and I will repeat it again, no matter what language one speaks - names will/should always sound the same no matter what.

Maybe that's how it seems to you, but that is not the case. No one ever "hacked" them to pieces, as if they wanted to be disrespectful...You simply can't bring a name over into a totally different language and either make it look the same way, or even sound the exact same way, as languages have different letters and lack certain others.

Correct me if I hear you wrong, Will, but what you seem to think, is that Our Father cares that The Name sounds the same way when spoken. If so, where did you get that idea from? Is the "sound" sacred? Does it have any "power" when uttered, whereas if it's not the same "sound" the demons won't be cast out? I say it's not at all what it sounds like, but if the Person actually knows who they are representing and have His Power at work in them.

I have a version of The Scriptures here, and they believe that it is more right to keep the original letters of the Name, rather than have them in English script/font. But does Our Father care about that at all?

.

Last edited by Thirdwoe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The Texas RAT wrote:"Jeshua" is therefore the Aramaic form[transliteration] of the Hebrew name "Jehoshua"(Strong's #H3091).

It's not a transliteration in the strictest sense of the word.

As I had explained with Zebedee/Zebidu/Zebediah above, they are somewhat cognate (given similar etymological origins); however, if you were to transliterateYehoshua from Hebrew into Aramaic, you'd end up with Yehoshua as the two languages share the same alphabet and very similar phonology. :-)

Both names were in use separately, but concurrently, amongst Aramaic speakers of the era and they weren't treated as the *same* name.

For an example of how names with similar etymology but differing forms circulate side-by-side, my name is Steven (which is the more "Italian" spelling). I have a friend whose name is Stephen (the more "Greek" spelling).

Stephen is not my name, and Steven is not his. They are not the same. But they share origins.

What form of His Name, can we say Gabriel told His Mother to call Him? Was it Hebrew or Aramaic? And how can we be certain? And can you spell it out here, Steve. In both forms as you believe they would look like transliterated into English characters. To me it's not an issue, but for the sake of others for whom it might be.

Will, I don't see anything in those verses that teach we must have His Name either spelled the same in every language, or that it must sound the exact same way in each language...Show me where, in case I missed it.

It's not about the sound we make or the letters we use, Will, it's WHO it is that we are devoted to, obeying, and worshiping. Besides, none of those verses are speaking about the Name of the Messiah is it? Unless you are thinking we are to call the Messiah YHWH now, instead of Yehoshua, the Hebrew form, or any other form of His Name in the many other languages.

Thirdwoe wrote:It's not about the sound we make or the letters we use, Will, it's WHO it is that we are devoted to, obeying, and worshiping.

Dear Chuck, as I said before, if you can not understand that hacking-up one's name is not a form of true worship then there is nothing more I need say. But just in case, I'll take one more shoot at it - try looking up the following words and meditate on how they relate when saying one's name.

transliteration:a) Taking a word from one language and writing it in different letters - just as it sounds.b) Implies the writing of words with characters of another alphabet that represents the same sound or sounds.

transcription:a) (Linguistics / Phonetics & Phonology) a representation in writing of the actual pronunciation of a speech sound, word, or piece of continuous text, using not a conventional orthography but a symbol or set of symbols specially designated as standing for corresponding phonetic values.b) A form in which a speech sound or a foreign character is represented.

appellation:a) The action of giving a name to a person or thing.b) Identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others.

misnomer: a) An error regarding a name.b) An error in naming a person or thing.c) A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue. Such incorrect terms sometimes derived their names because of the form, action, or origin of the subject becoming named popularly or widely referenced—long before their true natures were known.d) The act of referring to a person by the wrong name.e) A wrong name; an incorrect appellation.

The idea that I am trying to convey here is that - if one transliterates incorrectly when making a transcription of an appellation then it is a misnomer.

Chuck, YHWH gave His Son an appellation, and it is a misnomer to re-appellate Him with the excuse, which includes claiming the usage of a different language.

I understand the points you have been trying to make. But you are going to have to be honest, that neither you, nor anyone alive on earth today knows what language Gabriel spoke to our Messiah's Mother on that day, instructing her what to name M’shikha. It may have been Aramaic for all you know...and you can guess that it was instead Hebrew, and was spelled and sounded like Yehoshua...but it's only a guess.

It could be true, and if it were, it wouldn’t bother me an inch…BUT the big problem we have, is that we do not have any Hebrew NT's to look at, which can be said to be copies of an original Hebrew NT. Did we lose or destroy YHWH's Holy Written Word? I don't believe so, Will. Do you?

What we do have is The Aramaic Scriptures, and The Greek and The Latin versions. So, in The Eastern Aramaic Scriptures, which YHWH has seen fit to preserve all these centuries under incredible circumstances, we have The Messiah's Name. And we see that The Greek version and the Latin version, agrees with what His Name is in The Aramaic Scriptures, which are certainly transliterations of YESHUA...with the long eee and the silent ayin, Y ESHU A ...with IESOVS (Greek) and IESU (Latin). And the original English form of His Aramaic Name is found in the original KJV, spelled thus, IESVS...which is certainly a transliteration of the same Name YESHU.

So…for almost 2000 years, and in every language where the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, His Holy Name is given in The Aramaic form. This is an indisputable fact my Brother. Are you trying to bring shame upon it? Why?

Also, as you might now…soon after 1611, the English language went through a few major changes in its letters...and one such letter change was the letter "I", which in some cases became the letter "J" ...you can see this not only in the Name JESUS, but in the name IOSHUA which was changed to JOSHUA, and IUDGES which was changed to JUDGES...and IOB to JOB...and so on. And the letter "V" in some cases became the letter "U"...so IESVS became JESUS, when the English language went through these changes... NO HACKING…or a deliberate attempt to shame His Name.

This is only spelling and sound...it is STILL the same Holy Name, even though it looks different and sounds different...like STEVEN & STEPHEN...Same name...just looks and sounds different.

So, in all the main language translations Greek/Latin/English, which YHWH saw fit to send His Message of salvation out in for these last 2000 years, to the most people…it has been THE NAME of The our Master from The Aramaic form of YESHU, now, long eee, silent ayin, through the Greek IESOVS, then the Latin IESU, then the English IESVS...and then the modern form, it’s JESUS!

So...His Name has stayed pretty much the same, Will, as it went through three totally different languages, in a transliterated form.

If YHWH wanted His Name to come to the entire world as YEHOSHUA...then, I believe we would have seen that happen, Will, but not a shred of evidence that this was the case can be seen…

I don’t have one problem with the Name of JESUS, in English…Nor should you.

Thirdwoe wrote:I understand the points you have been trying to make. But you are going to have to be honest, that neither you, nor anyone alive on earth today knows what language Gabriel spoke to our Messiah's Mother on that day, instructing her what to name M’shikha. It may have been Aramaic for all you know...

In the book of ZecharYahu [6:9-13], YHWH states:And the word of YHWH came unto me, saying, Take of them of the captivity, even of Chelday, of TobiYahu, and of JedaYah, which are come from Babel, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of JoshiYahu the son of ZephanYahu; Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of YEHOSHUA the son of Yehozadek, the high priest; And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaksYHWHof Hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple ofYHWH: Even he shall build the temple ofYHWH; and he shall bear the Splendor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Chuck, is this or is it not YHWH our Eloheem foretelling of His Anointed One (a.k.a. - YHWH only begotten Son)?

Chuck, is YHWH a lier?

Chuck, if YHWH foretold of His Anointed One as Yehoshua would it not come true just as YHWH foretold?

Chuck, could GabreeAil have dared to tell The Anointed One's mom anything other than what YHWH had already set forth in His Word?

Thirdwoe wrote:and you can guess that it was instead Hebrew, and was spelled and sounded like Yehoshua...but it's only a guess.

Chuck, should I take it you are saying that we can not take YHWH literally when He Prophecies something in His Word.

Chuck, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Texts, as well as many other Old Covenant Texts attest that YHWH called His Anointed One Yehoshua.

Thirdwoe wrote:It could be true, and if it were, it wouldn't bother me an inch…BUT the big problem we have, is that we do not have any Hebrew NT's to look at, which can be said to be copies of an original Hebrew NT. Did we lose or destroy YHWH's Holy Written Word? I don't believe so, Will. Do you?

Chuck, it is a FACT of history that Hebrew priest burn (i.e.-destroyed) many of the ReNewed Covenant Texts. It reported that they were to cut out the Divine Name of YHWH out of these Texts before they burned them. It is also attested to in history that the Catholic Church sought out and destroyed many more copies. So, Chuck, no I do not believe that YHWH has preserved His Inspired Autographs in the texts we have to date, yet they might be hidden in the Catholic Church Library, or perhaps in clay jars in a cave(s) some where.

Thirdwoe wrote:What we do have is The Aramaic Scriptures, and The Greek and The Latin versions. ... The Eastern Aramaic Scriptures, which YHWH has seen fit to preserve all these centuries under incredible circumstances, ...

Chuck, these that we have today are not the original copies by no means. And it could very well be, just as with other language translation, that the 5th century scribes of the Eastern Peshitta could have used their so-called modernized form (i.e. - misnomer) instead of what was in the text they were supposedly coping. Perhaps the 5th century scribes copied this name exactly as it was in the text they copied but what about the scribes before them? could it be that earlier scribes had already tried to modernize this name? Even between the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta Texts we have to day that names are spelled differently from one scribes hand unto another. Few copies have been exact when it came to spelling names. And translations have been even farther off as far as preserving the original names sounds when it came to transcribing transliterations of appellations.

Thirdwoe wrote:This is only spelling and sound...it is STILL the same Holy Name, even though it looks different and sounds different...like STEVEN & STEPHEN...Same name...just looks and sounds different.

Stephen is a misnomer if you call some one that that's name is Steven, and Steven is a misnomer if you call one that's name is Stephen. So even though they have a common denominator no they are not the same name by any means.

Thirdwoe wrote:So, in all the main language translations Greek/Latin/English, which YHWH saw fit to send His Message of salvation out in for these last 2000 years, to the most people…it has been THE NAME of The our Master from The Aramaic form of YESHU, now, long eee, silent ayin, through the Greek IESOVS, then the Latin IESU, then the English IESVS...and then the modern form, it’s JESUS!

So...His Name has stayed pretty much the same, Will, as it went through three totally different languages, in a transliterated form.

Chuck, (if one does an honest assessment) a misnomer from it's conception is still a misnomer 2000 years down the road.

Thirdwoe wrote:If YHWH wanted His Name to come to the entire world as YEHOSHUA...then, I believe we would have seen that happen, Will, but not a shred of evidence that this was the case can be seen…

Well, Chuck, only if one keeps denying ZecharYahu 6:9-13 is THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF YHWH.

Thirdwoe wrote:I don’t have one problem with the Name of JESUS, in English…Nor should you.

Chuck, I do have one problem with Jesus (pronounced - JEE-zuhs), (all word games aside) the fact that it is a misnomer!

Chuck, as I can see that neither of us are gaining ground convincing the other here, so can we now simply agree to disagree and let it go at that. This does not mean that you or I can not continue to share our thoughts upon this matter with others, just no longer address one another upon this subject. Brother Chuck, what say you - can we give each other over to the Spirit of YHWH to deal with us separately in this matter from here on out?

I do agree with Chuck. We cannot be exactly sure about the pronunciation, and if we have the exact original writing, we could have doubts about the pronunciation.

Language is dynamic, and as names were pronounced and written in the days of Moses up to todays Hebrew, they changed and got shortened! There is nothing 'holy' about this process. And if this were an issue of holy inspiration and such importance to which our lives depend, well then, why did Yeshu not spell out YHWH or even his own name?

Why did Paul not add how to pronounce it? It would be obvious to do so for example, in Romans 10:13. I mean, it's not the name or how you pronounce it, but how you honour it!